In every business relationship there is the potential for conflict over contractual agreements or business operations. When such conflicts arise, there is no need to incur the onerous expense and delays involved in traditional litigation. There are readily available alternative dispute resolution procedures that will enable you to resolve your disputes relatively quickly, fairly and cost-effectively.

Resolving international disputes demands special skills, experience and cultural sensitivity. That’s why thousands of attorneys and their clients turn to JAMS. We are a recognized leader in cross-border mediations and arbitrations, with resources wherever you or your clients do business.

Colleges and universities need to manage, resolve and prevent conflict. As a worldwide leader in dispute resolution, JAMS is singularly qualified to provide a comprehensive range of unique and effective solutions for problems facing students, faculty and administration.

The JAMS ADR blog serves to engage our clients, the legal community and the public in a discussion about alternative dispute resolution. As leaders in mediation, arbitration and more, we strive to remain at the forefront of legal developments, trends and news in areas of law that pertain to ADR.

International commercial arbitration is one of the fastest-growing practices at JAMS. With industry leading rules, JAMS is praised for a highly experienced panel with specialties in many key areas, multilingual case management capabilities, and unparalleled service. JAMS specializes in the resolution of international disputes and is one of the largest providers of commercial arbitration in the world.

Managing Discovery in Patent Cases: Best Practices

Managing Discovery in Patent Cases: Best Practices

Source:
Law 360

Date:
February 9, 2009

All Content Copyright 2009, Portfolio Media, Inc. 1
Portfolio Media. Inc. | 648 Broadway, Suite 200 | New York, NY 10012 | www.law360.com
Phone: +1 212 537 6331 | Fax: +1 212 537 6371 | customerservice@portfoliomedia.com
Managing Discovery In Patent Cases: Best Practices
Law 360, New York (February 9, 2009) — An appointment as Discovery Special Master in a multidistrict
litigation of about 100 patent actions in the Central District of California demonstrated that managing
discovery in patent litigation requires specialized best practices to cope with unusual challenges:
• the volume of material, virtually all in electronic form;
• the tenaciousness of counsel; striking the right balance between traditional written
discovery and expert opinions;
• the scheduling pressures, driven by court-imposed deadlines for claim construction
and summary adjudication;
• privilege disputes complicated by waiver issues peculiar to patent law; scheduling
discovery for dozens of experts.
This article will briefly outline some “best practices” for a Discovery Special Master in complex
patent litigation.
1. Know the Law
A discovery master should be comfortable with recurring patent issues — infringement (direct
and indirect), invalidity (prior art, anticipation, obviousness), unenforceability (inequitable conduct,
prosecution laches), estoppel, waiver, willfulness, damages — because the scope of discovery is
framed by the elements of these claims and defenses.
Privilege claims will be dramatically impacted by a party’s reliance on advice of counsel. The parties
should provide the master with a binder of material and important case law on the key issues in
the particular case.
2. Know the Technology
A discovery master should be a “quick study” about the patented technology and be sensitive to
the legal significance of minor differences in design or function. A joint in-person tutorial of a half
or full day, with a binder of key materials to refer to as the case evolves, will bring the discovery
Master up to speed.
3. Work With Lead Counsel
In a multi-action MDL proceeding there will typically be one or more lead counsel for both plaintiff
and defendant(s). Lead counsel will normally have the resources to help the discovery master
communicate with all counsel, distribute orders, schedule hearings and allocate the master’s billings All Content Copyright 2009, Portfolio Media, Inc. 2
among appropriate parties. If lead counsel have not been appointed in a multi-party case, the master
should ask the court to appoint them.
4. Issue Clear Procedural Guidelines
A discovery master should strive to save the parties more money through focused, efficient,
collaborative discovery than they pay the master.
The first step is to issue a discovery management order that instructs counsel about: how to file
papers with the Master (electronically or hard copy); briefing time limits and page lengths; how to
request a hearing date; whether the master will decide matters informally, with limited or no briefing;
how to raise very urgent issues that arise suddenly during a conference call or deposition.
5. Enter a Discovery Case Management Order
If the court has not already done so, the discovery master should work with counsel and the court
to develop, within the context of the local patent rules, a protocol for the scope and timing of all
discovery. Some important issues to be considered in framing such an order are:
• Define the Accused Systems, Products or Services. If the case involves many accused
devices or processes, consider requiring the parties to agree on representative examples
for purposes of discovery.
• Require parties to produce “Core Discovery” at the outset without discovery
requests.
Core Discovery might include: design documents, physical location of relevant material, manuals,
data on usage of the product in question, data on alleged cost savings, organizational charts for each
party, prior art, license agreements and communications, prior royalties paid, documents about
conception and reduction to practice, and other relevant non-privileged communications.
• Require discovery to be coordinated to minimize duplication. Will each defendant have
access to all discovery produced by the others, subject to the protective order?
• Impose presumptive limits, both as to scope and length, on written discovery and
depositions.
• If local patent rules do not already require this, set deadlines and rules for infringement
and invalidity contentions.
• Prescribe an e-discovery protocol.
• Set a deadline for disclosure of any opinion of counsel that will be relied upon in
defense of a claim of willful infringement.
6. Develop a Protocol for Third-Party Discovery
Non-party consultants and contractors often possess critical information about product design and
operation. Subpoenas to such third parties will generate objections based on confidentiality and
undue burden.All Content Copyright 2009, Portfolio Media, Inc. 3
Multiple parties may subpoena material from the same third party who will rightly protest the
undue burden. The master should consider requiring parties to: identify third parties that possess
relevant information; direct each party to authorize its consultants or contractors to comply with
subpoenas; combine subpoenas to the same third party.
A master appointed by an MDL-transferee court is empowered to regulate depositions of out-of-state
non-parties [28 U.S.C. §1407(b)], and is generally held to be authorized to rule on all aspects of an
extra-district subpoena [U.S. ex rel Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of Am. Inc., 444 F.3d 462,
468-469, fn. 4 (6th Cir. 2006); In re Neurontin, etc., Litigation, 245 F.R.D. 55 (D. Mass. 2007)].
7. Resolve Chicken-Or-Egg Arguments
Patent cases often involve reciprocal, overlapping issues on which the parties are entitled to know
each other’s contentions and supporting evidence. But in what order, and in what detail at each
stage of the case?
For example, the patent holder serves an interrogatory asking why the other party contends its
product does not infringe. The responding party refuses to provide its contentions as to non-
infringement until the patent holder has stated its contentions as to infringement.
Sometimes these disputes can be resolved based on the burden of proof; often local patent rules
will require the patent holder to state its infringement contentions at the outset. And yet, these
arguments recur incessantly.
A good default rule is that the patent holder should go first with its infringement contentions,
but even if this occurs the other side is likely to argue that the patent holder’s response was not
sufficiently specific.
So that such arguments do not stall discovery, the master should normally require the alleged infringer
to respond — and then supplement its response as it learns more detail about the infringement
contentions.
8. Be Familiar With Recurring Patent Issues
• How specifically must the patentee identify the allegedly infringing product, mechanism
or service? How locked in should patentees be to their preliminary infringement
contentions?
Alleged infringers need specificity to focus their investigation and discovery; the patentee needs flexibility
to amend its identification as it learns more about the other side’s structure and business.
• Who possesses the source code? Has the code been fully produced? How many
versions must be produced? Is special software required to read the code in the most
useful format?
• In deciding privilege issues, a Master should avoid one-size-fits-all rulings. The scope
of any waiver (e.g., for what period of time, as to communications with whom, as to
what patents or their progeny) should track the purpose of the communication that
gave rise to the waiver.All Content Copyright 2009, Portfolio Media, Inc. 4
The communication to a non-client of a privileged conversation 25 years ago about Patent A needn’t
necessarily waive the privilege as to all communications at any time about related Patents A-1, A-2
and A-3.
In addressing purported common interest or joint defense protection the master needs to be
precise about whether parties have produced actual evidence of a “common interest” that is legally
sufficient in the relevant jurisdiction.
• Interrogatory responses that are sprinkled with evasive terms like “for example” and
“e.g.” are suspect. A responding party will often lack complete knowledge of the basis
for its contentions, that will be in later discovery or from experts.
But the propounding party is entitled to know without equivocation what the responding party
knows when it replies. So a response should clearly say in so many words, “Here’s the evidence I
have now. I don’t know any more at this time. When I learn more, I’ll supplement my answer.”
10. Help Counsel Focus Written Discovery
How much fact discovery is appropriate in cases that are so largely dependent on expert opinions?
Does it make sense to require a party to details its contentions in 100 pages of lawyer-generated
verbiage, or can clarification fairly await an expert report and ensuing deposition? A master, working
with the appointing judge, can help counsel find a fair balance.
11. Develop a Protocol for Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions
A deposition of an entity pursuant to Federal Rule 30(b)(6) is both an invaluable tool and a ready
weapon to inflict pain. Consider the burden on a national corporation with multiple facilities to
prepare for a 30(b)(6) deposition on 25 or more broad topics.
A legally adequate response might require a dozen witnesses, and the retrieval and review of
thousands of potential exhibits. At the deposition the examining counsel may spend 90 percent of
the time on only four of the 25 topics, decide not to examine two of the designated witnesses at
all, and offer as exhibits only 50 of the thousands of potentially pertinent documents.
A master should develop with counsel’s input a protocol that: limits the number of topics for a
30(b)(6) notice; requires the noticing party identify “priority” topics on which it expects to focus
the examination; requires parties to designate witnesses by topic five business days prior to the
deposition, and to state two business days before the deposition whether the witnesses will be
examined in their individual capacity as well.
12. Always Be Available
A discovery master should be available to deal with issues informally at an early stage, should
respond to e-mail throughout the workday, at night and on weekends, and be prepared to hold
telephonic hearings early in the morning and after normal working hours to accommodate counsel
in different time zones.All Content Copyright 2009, Portfolio Media, Inc. 5
13. Make Decisions Promptly
Patent cases are often on very fast tracks. A discovery master should target the issuance of an order
within five days after a hearing. Unlike fine wine, discovery issues do not improve with age.
Final Word: How a Master Should Justify the Cost?
Some patent litigators fear that a master will increase the cost of discovery disputes. Will a master’s
informal procedures, ready availability and distance from the district judge encourage lawyers to
generate discovery battles? Will lawyers make arguments to a master that they would hesitate to
bring to a district judge or magistrate judge? How should a Master control any such tendency?
First, insist on meaningful meet-and-confer sessions. A master has tools to ensure that counsel
engage in serious, collaborative discussions. A master may require a telephone report of important
meet-and-confer sessions, or actually attend a session.
Some courts have required counsel to videotape meet-and-confer sessions. A couple of rounds
of such “encouragement” usually persuades counsel of the benefit of making a serious effort to
compromise disputes.
Second, make clear in discussions with counsel that the master knows an unnecessary, time-wasting
or frivolous dispute when she sees it. Often a raised eyebrow or pointed remark is enough to
correct such tendencies.
Third, impose cost sanctions for meritless motions or objections. Sanctions need to be wielded
with care since they can either clear or poison the litigation atmosphere.
But counsel typically want the court to penalize plainly inappropriate discovery requests or objections.
A master who deals daily with counsel will often have a more nuanced feel for when sanctions are
appropriate than a judge who is more removed.
— By Martin Quinn, JAMS Resolution Center
Martin Quinn, an arbitrator, mediator and special master with JAMS Resolution Center in the San Francisco
office.
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Portfolio Media,
publisher of Law 360.

JAMS Neutrals

Sign up for email alerts

This website is not a solicitation for business. All content on the JAMS website is intended to provide general information about JAMS and an opportunity for interested persons to contact JAMS. The content of this website is not offered as legal advice or legal opinion and it should not be relied upon for any specific situation. JAMS neutrals are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney client relationship is intended. This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a complete description of JAMS services. While JAMS endeavors to keep the information updated and correct, JAMS makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the information contained in this website. See More